Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

I personally are anti-tibet right now. Western media says Tibet was forced taken by Chinese after worl war II, Chinese media says Chinese Liberate Army freed tibet from slavary after WWII. No one knows whos telling the truth since both media are all manipulative.

but I have a few doubts about the whole riot.

Isn't Dalai Lama all about Peace and Harmony?
Why is the riot so violent in Tibet? mobs are burning schools and hospital, random Han people are being attacked...
Why didn't he stand up and stopping the riot?

Media have been reporting about the protest ay Chinese Embassy all over the world. The protesters are asking Chinese Government to remove the millitary force from Tibet. Let's take a look the whole thing and ask ourselves, why did the Chinese government send in the millitary at the first place?

Its amazing to watch the Chinese news feeds (Xinhua) and the transmogrification of the facts into a complete rewrite of the events. Unfortunately, the Chinese authorities won't allow independent observers into Tibet to verify events so data is sporadic ... and the Chinese authorities are contradicting themselves in regard to events not helping their credibility.

The Dalai Lama *is* asking people to stop. He's offering to meet Chinese conditions, he's offering inspection of anything he owns. He wants to meet with Chinese officials - he only wants a small level of autonomy something like Hong Kong has.

That doesn't mean the disaffected Tibetans going to listen to the Lama. They are quite frustrated, especially with the favored treatment going to the Han Chinese immigrants to the area and the high unemployment of young male Tibetans. I'm not going to defend the violence but the Chinese policies toward Tibetan culture pretty much set the table for this kind of sad result. The Han immigrants getting caught in the riots are as much victims of those policies as are the frustrated Tibetans.

As far as "freed" or "occupied".... well, the Chinese authorities can be said to be doing the same thing to the Tibetans that they've done to all the Chinese regions and the Chinese people. Enforced policies and central planning, cultural revision.

Right now, the Chinese appear to be in the wrong. That's just appearance, though. What's the Chinese authorities saying to the Dahli Lama's offer? I know China's move to ban people from accessing youtube to see the events might have been a bad idea in terms of PR...but it's a communist country...

Isn't Dalai Lama all about Peace and Harmony?
Why is the riot so violent in Tibet? mobs are burning schools and hospital, random Han people are being attacked...
Why didn't he stand up and stopping the riot?

He specifically said that if the rioting doesn't stop, he's resigning from his leadersihp position. Please get your facts correct.

I personally want this to result in the break up of PRC into at least three pieces: PRC, Tibet, Uyghuristan.

I'm not sure what to think honestly. Since the information is so fractured among the various media, it's hard to form a clear view of what's going on. It's certainly sad to hear about the violence, no matter what source it's from.

Here is an overview and Q&A of what has happened over at BBC news. How much of it to believe is up to yourself really.

i agree with most of them, but last few facts in "What sparked the protests?" just seem bull to me

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

Right now, the Chinese appear to be in the wrong. That's just appearance, though. What's the Chinese authorities saying to the Dahli Lama's offer? I know China's move to ban people from accessing youtube to see the events might have been a bad idea in terms of PR...but it's a communist country...

I personally want this to result in the break up of PRC into at least three pieces: PRC, Tibet, Uyghuristan.[/COLOR]

I actually have enought with western thinking, fuelling sectarianism and splitting people into racial groups. Look what happend to iraq, they use to be a nation where people didn't care if the other was sunni, shia or kurd.
Besides if you going to split up PRC (or ROC), China will cease to exist, since it is nothing more than a name for all those regions.
Other than that, i personally think that any nation or region that is ruled throught religious leaders, in this case a person with SS connections, should be crushed anyway. The actions in PRC might be against religious freedom or freedom in general, but a victory for atheism and socialism.

I actually have enought with western thinking, fuelling sectarianism and splitting people into racial groups. Look what happend to iraq, they use to be a nation where people didn't care if the other was sunni, shia or kurd.
Besides if you going to split up PRC (or ROC), China will cease to exist, since it is nothing more than a name for all those regions.
Other than that, i personally think that any nation or region that is ruled throught religious leaders, in this case a person with SS connections, should be crushed anyway. The actions in PRC might be against religious freedom or freedom in general, but a victory for atheism and socialism.

I don't know the proper name for the religion in Tibet, but it is a branch off from buddism and buddism is the main religion in China. Since monks are the ones usually involved in separist movement (seems like that way) so people make it look like a religious issue. And also, I know a lot of christian friends in China ( from US, Brazil, Spain...) they have their church, their youth activities, i don't see the religious freedom problem in China.

on BBC it mentioned Tibet was independent from 1912 to 1950. Well, late 1800 to early 1900, China was corrupted by Opian (imported by british) and eventually the Qing dynasty was destroyed by western army. After the western army left China going back to their own country to prepare for WWI. China had no government or rulers of any sort. Regions were controled by religious leaders or armed groups. It was later Red Army was formed by slaves and farmers to reunite China. Then the Japanese invasion occured, and after that was the Chinese Civil War. After the civil war the Red Army continued to reunite China. And sinceTibet was ruled by wutever dynasty over thousand years, it is not wrong the chinese government at that time to see tibet as part of China.

I don't know the proper name for the religion in Tibet, but it is a branch off from buddism and buddism is the main religion in China. Since monks are the ones usually involved in separist movement (seems like that way) so people make it look like a religious issue. And also, I know a lot of christian friends in China ( from US, Brazil, Spain...) they have their church, their youth activities, i don't see the religious freedom problem in China.

Oh give me a break the last time I check major religions of the Han Populous were Taoism and Confucianism and Buddhism was a minority.

It is arguable whether Britain accepted that on a moral ground. You should take into account the damage British military force suffered during the WW2 and the decline of national strength. Britain was just wiser to avoid friction than France on the relation to Asian colonies.

Anyway, violence can be a reasonable choice as long as it is effective. In this situation, violence is pointless. It provides the authority with the excuse of armed interference. The result of violence (the image of piled dead people...) might be effective to ptrovoke international sympathy. However, China is so influential economically and politically that every foreign government cannot take radical attitude toward the massacre. I believe the sympathy will not move the international community. It is easy to blame North Korea or Iran for the posession of atomic, biological and chemical weapons, but everybody keeps silent on the US matters. Violence is wrong choice there, though the motivation is understandable.

>I personally want this to result in the break up of PRC into at least three pieces: PRC, Tibet, Uyghuristan.

National self-determination is the fundamental principle of modern world. However, if Beijing accepts such split, then it will surely face the challenge from Taiwan and Southern Mongol. Beijing never says yes to such proposal. And, both Tibet and Uyghuristan are full of underground resources. They are also important buffer areas against central asian countries and India. I think Beijing would even prefer to burn out both areas than to lose them. The modest compromise point is, in my humble opinion, high autonomy of Tibet at most.

It is arguable whether Britain accepted that on a moral ground. You should take into account the damage British military force suffered during the WW2 and the decline of national strength. Britain was just wiser to avoid friction than France on the relation to Asian colonies.
.

not entirely true.. it became apparent by the 1930's that britain would not last in india. infact, it was silly economically to try and keep india, but the government that came in after churchill was always anti-colonization. however, it is true that WW2 greatly speeded things up.

having said that, as an earlier poster mentioned.. the chinese arnt the british. non violence will not get them anywhere in this case - even if everything in tibet stops functioning effectively.. the chinese can and will move on. in somewhere like india, the entire colony stopped functioning for the most part, which is why non-violence was succesful.

The situation is pretty complicated, as much as people might agree that tibet deserves freedom, resisting violently is probably not the answer.. so what other alternatives are there?

there are 20 million Buddism monks in China, only 2.5 million Taoism Monks

I really do not read Chinese so don't bother posting them.
Besides it's illegal for private parties to conduct surveys in mainland China isn't it.
Anyways here is some excerpt from Wiki since I guess you are not able to view it from mainland china.

"About 8% of the Chinese population are avowed Buddhists, with Mahayana (大乘, Dacheng) and its subsets Pure Land (Amidism), Tiantai and Zen being the most widely practiced."

"The number of Taoists is difficult to estimate, partly for definitional reasons (who counts as a Taoist?), and partly for practical ones. The number of people practicing some aspect of the Chinese folk religion might number in the hundreds of millions."

"Confucianism is a complex system of moral, social, political, philosophical, and quasi-religious thought that has had tremendous influence on the culture and history of East Asia."

I really do not read Chinese so don't bother posting them.
Besides it's illegal for private parties to conduct surveys in mainland China isn't it.
Anyways here is some excerpt from Wiki since I guess you are not able to view it from mainland china.

"About 8% of the Chinese population are avowed Buddhists, with Mahayana (大乘, Dacheng) and its subsets Pure Land (Amidism), Tiantai and Zen being the most widely practiced."

"The number of Taoists is difficult to estimate, partly for definitional reasons (who counts as a Taoist?), and partly for practical ones. The number of people practicing some aspect of the Chinese folk religion might number in the hundreds of millions."

"Confucianism is a complex system of moral, social, political, philosophical, and quasi-religious thought that has had tremendous influence on the culture and history of East Asia."

yes, people still practice confucianism today because it teaches basic moral.

I guess u never practiced buddism, avowed Buddhists in china means u go to Buddist temple once a week or maybe more, joing the monks to read versus, study philosophy. It's like in North America, you have avowed catholic that goes to Misa every weekend, and there are people say they are catholic or christian but never goes to the church.

I don't really know much about the issue, and I can't dig up too much information online, but I really can't disagree with a nation which was conquered in the past wanting to regain their independence. I don't approve the violence, but I can't approve of the Chinese government when they say they're going to "crush" the "conspiracy".

Of course, this view is certainly biased due to my living in a usually oppressed by foreign powers, third-world country.

The whole situation is quite confusing to us outsiders, since most of the informations coming from China are also manipulated, it's not easy to get a clear grasp of it. Still, I wonder one thing: why a country like China, where apparently (again, I'm just talking from what I know as an outsider) human rights are not always respected and where the government doesn't hesitate to use even violent methods to suppress opposing forces (wether it's about politics, or religion, or both), has been picked as the host for the Olympic Games? Isn't this a bit of a contradiction?